Re: "toll-free bridging"

[Pedro Ivo Andrade Tavares]

At 12:39 16/3/2001, you wrote:

> Have you read the APSL 1.2? I have.
>
> The only restriction is they can use your modifications without royalty. 
> This restriction doesn't even apply in this case because you don't need to 
> modify Core Foundation.

Actually, you do need to modify CF. I did the port of CoreFoundation to 
Linux, and actually left some classes behind (all involving CFPort, since I 
did not know anything about Mach ports) in the effort. Also, several 
classes were modified to be ported from the Darwin/Win32/MacOSClassic trio, 
which are the only platforms the code cared about originally. The code is 
not anywhere nearly as portable as GNUstep: It only builds on Win32, 
Darwin, MacOS9 (Apple-maintained), Linux and FreeBSD (both probably 
bitrotted by now). Any other platform will involve some hacking.

Also, keep in mind that Apple changes can and will trample upon portable 
code, so you will be always falling behind.

These are the rules of the game; actually, I have no problem with them.

> There is no restriction to using any APSL code except you must include a 
> copy of the licence. You can static link any APSL code into a binary and 
> sell that binary so long you give Apple credit for the APSL code and your 
> code doesn't modify the APSL code. If it does all you have to do is 
> publish those modifications. It's less restrictive than the LGPL.

One of the problems the FSF has with APSL is, if you use it, you're forced 
to publish it. The GPL and LGPL only make you publish your changes if you 
distribute the source code. That doesn't sound less restrictive to me.

That said, I have no problem with the APSL 1.2, and have contributed code 
under it to Apple (my CF port to Linux).

If you want to do a "toll-free bridge" under Linux, all you have to do is 
start a new project (using no GNUstep code) and build an ObjC wrapper for 
CF. This code could be under the LGPL or GPL, provided you included the 
clause people used to recommend to programs using Qt: basically, something 
saying "This program is covered by the [L]GPL. As an exception, you have 
the right to link it to any APSL-licensed code (such as CF). This does not 
exclude any other reasons there might be license incompatibilities with 
other code", or somesuch. Take a look at the ObjC library license, for 
example (It's GPL, with an exception that, if compiled under GCC, it 
doesn't make the resulting executable GPL'd)

> There is no way Apple could possibly squeeze money out of your pocket if 
> you chose to use APSL code. That's pure FUD on your part.
>
> For a change how about reading the license, or would you consider that a 
> flame?
Please folks, let's calm down. We're all together in this.

Pedro Ivo Tavares